Do I need a 70-200mm f2.8L IS II?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
RogerZoul
Regular MemberPosts: 172Gear list
Like?
Re: Do I need a 70-200mm f2.8L IS II?
In reply to Phil Geusebroek, 5 months ago

Phil Geusebroek wrote:

diness wrote:

Phil Geusebroek wrote:

Thanks to everyone who posted:

- I don't think I strictly need it for the landscapes and travel stuff I mostly shoot, but do shoot the odd bit of wildlife that wanders in. Maybe the lens would have application for zooming composition with a 1.4x or 2x extender, but wonder about the image quality with the latter and it wouldn't outreach my 300mm f4 IS.

- I don't shoot weddings, sports or events on a regular basis. Once in awhile I'll bring the 135L or 200 f2.8L for informal stuff.

- I can afford it.

- I do mind the weight and the colour, but will try it if I'm missing out on something very useful. I've bought lenses not knowing their utility before and discovered things about them I really liked, and they became mainstays. This is why I'm asking what I might be overlooking in this lens.

Based on these things, I wouldn't bother with it. Sounds like weight is an issue for you and so is the size and color... Since you already have a 135L and a 200L which are both very sharp and are smaller and black... I would use those when you wanted 2.8 or larger aperture and didn't want the white color. Then when you want the flexibility of the zoom you can use the 70-200 f4L IS. Those three lenses you have area all incredibly good lenses and if they're less sharp than the 70-200 2.8 II it's not by much. I would say keep what you have and enjoy it! (or give them to me...)

Thanks, you and others are leading me to again decide I don't need it. I used to argue that the 100 macro was a better choice than the 70-200mm because it's in the middle of the angle of view, small, black, sharper and more unobtrusive: people didn't feel like you were aiming a bazooka at them. But every pro seems to swear by that lens and I've never owned one, so began to wonder...

Of course pros swear by it...they need to be able to deliver the goods under any kind of conditions, so that extra stop of light makes the difference and thus enabled them to better do their job, which is important to them for getting paid.  I have the F4 IS and feel zero reason to buy the F2.8 because I'm not a pro.  And I rather put my money in other types of lenses.

The 135mm f2L is pure joy at f/2, and people hardly notice you sneaking around with no flash. I suspect the 100mm f2.8L IS will be really handy as a low light portrait lens as well, but haven't tried it yet.

I like lightweight kit.

 RogerZoul's gear list:RogerZoul's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 70D Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow